Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Bean

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to NewVantage Partners. It's a little bit of a stretch to say there's a consensus for merge, but it's either that or flat-out delete. I leave it up to normal editorial discretion to determine how much material to merge and what to leave behind. In any case, leave a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, as the secondary sources quoted are either written by Bean himself, or quote him only briefly in passing. McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, sources are either by Bean or have a mere mention of him. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This page shouldn't be deleted for the reason that Randy Bean has become one of the most sought after authors and commentators on the topic of Big Data and its impact on business culture in an Information Age. Independent third-party citations have been provided from popular columns in the Wall Street Journal, MIT Sloan Management Review, Harvard Business Review, and quotes from other objective industry sources — Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Dauntless23, you are the creator of this article, so I offer this: your sources do not meet the requirements for reliable sources. For example, sources 1-5, 13-15 are BY the subject, not about him. Those aren't appropriate. Other sources have a single quote (eg #6) or a single mention of him. Those are not enough to establish notability. Sources like linkedin are not reliable. Also, you have some links to searches (WSJ, HBR, etc.]. You need to reference individual articles, not searches. The point is not quantity, but of having sources that verify the content of the article. There probably is enough to establish notability, but the sourcing needs to meet WP's policies. As an example, the article in Raconteur is the kind of resource that is needed, and others should be removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback, LaMona. I have taken what you have said and made the necessary changes. Hopefully it is sufficiently sourced to pass now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The only sources added to the article since its AfD are a book which only appears to credit Bean for a single interview in a small footnote, and another four secondary articles where Bean is quoted in passing, but which tell us nothing about him as a person except the company he works for. WP:BASIC explicitly says that "John Smith at Big Company said..." sources are not strong enough to support notability by themselves. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon, please look through all of the citations. Several of the sources are lengthy interviews with prominent publications (2, 3, and 4). Please advise what else is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are considered to be BY the person, not ABOUT the person because it is the person himself speaking. So they are not considered reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can be reliable, they're just considered primary sources per WP:NEWSPRIMARY, and per WP:BASIC "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (I don't mean just redirect, but actually merge some of the information) to NewVantage Partners. The company is probably notable but its article could use some expansion, such as adding more about the founders. Virtually every link at this article, except for two confirming his membership in things, consists of "Randy Bean of NewVantage Partners said..." This type of reference does not contribute to the notability of the person speaking; it does demonstrate that NewVantage Partners is the only thing he is known for. There seems to be nothing written ABOUT him, which is the definition of WP:GNG. What little biographical information the article has is completely unsourced. User:Dauntless23, you have tried hard, but if sources written ABOUT him do not exist, the best you can hope for is to have some information about him at the NewVantage Partners article, keeping his name as a redirect to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Because of a comment at another article about Bean being co-author of a "seminal paper", I searched Google Scholar to see if he might pass WP:ACADEMIC. He does not. That one paper, on which he was a co-author, has been cited 119 times; his only other paper was cited 7 times; this is not enough to establish him as a "thought leader in his field" under the criteria for academics and scholars. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO. possible conflict of interest editing. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to NewVantage Partners, which will enhance and improve the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.